15 Questions That Stump Evolution

[curtjester1]

http://creation.com/15-questions

CJ

[moshe]

On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> CJ

================

Evolution is illogical.

- moshe

[Tom McDonald]

In what way? It seems supremely logical to me.

[Terry Cross]

Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
from the lack. Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
force the logical derivation of the Atheist's foregone conclusions.
Each time a path of logic is shown to lead to some other conclusion,
the premises are readjusted.

TCross

[moshe]

=================

For example, read that link that the first poster gave.

Just going from memory of what I studies 20 years ago:

The dating methods are stupid.
How do they establish the dating methods? by comparing to the fossil
layers.
How do they date the fossil layers? by comparing to the dating
methods.
That is circular reasoning.

Testing residual lead and uranium levels.
But that presumes to know what the original content in the rock was,
and it presumes to know that the rock has not been affected by
environment since the rock was first created.

The species lines that have been created in the past are completely
bogus, with certain features appearing and then disappearing and then
appearing again and then disappearing again.

Some species have remained unchanged for millions of years (allegedly)
even though the environment dramatically changed many, many times in
those millions of years which should have created pressure on the DNA
to change / evolve during those millions of years.

The first living cell created itself?
Yeah, sure........ wanna sell me the Eiffel Tower, too?


- moshe

[Tom McDonald]

On 2/11/2013 1:03 PM, moshe wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:30 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/11/2013 11:44 AM, moshe wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://creation.com/15-questions
>>
>>>> CJ
>>
>>> ================
>>
>>> Evolution is illogical.
>>
>> In what way? It seems supremely logical to me.
>
> =================
>
> For example, read that link that the first poster gave.
>
> Just going from memory of what I studies 20 years ago:
>
> The dating methods are stupid.
> How do they establish the dating methods? by comparing to the fossil
> layers.
> How do they date the fossil layers? by comparing to the dating
> methods.
> That is circular reasoning.

It would be. Interestingly, that's not how it works. Fossils in strata
do show a pattern of origination, flourishing and decline to extinction.
This gives a pattern that gives a relative dating structure.

Radiometric dating gives calendar dates (with greater or lesser error
bars) that can be compared to the fossil sequences to give absolute
dates (again, with greater or lesser error bars). This produces a
linkage that can allow fossils of a known type to be assigned a date
range, even when found in another area.

> Testing residual lead and uranium levels.

That's one method. There are dozens of others, some of which don't
require that one know the original amount of radioactive material. It's
the fact that all relevant dating methods converge on the same answer
that allows us to be relatively confident that the dates so arrived at
are correct.

> But that presumes to know what the original content in the rock was,
> and it presumes to know that the rock has not been affected by
> environment since the rock was first created.

See above. You are wrong.

> The species lines that have been created in the past are completely
> bogus, with certain features appearing and then disappearing and then
> appearing again and then disappearing again.

This is nearly incomprehensible. Species 'lines' weren't created, they
were discovered. Also, morphological features often do reappear in
different lineages when they improve the survival of the species in
which they appear. (Look into 'convergent evolution' for some examples.)
Also, the main morphological characteristics of organisms show their
evolutionary origins--e.g. bilateral symmetry, five digits on the arms
and legs (at least primitively--although sometimes digits are fused or
lost), etc.

> Some species have remained unchanged for millions of years (allegedly)
> even though the environment dramatically changed many, many times in
> those millions of years which should have created pressure on the DNA
> to change / evolve during those millions of years.

No species have been unchanged for millions of years--at least not
genetically. Some morphological features in species that aren't under
much selective pressure (e.g. the body plan of coelecanths and horseshoe
crabs) can persist for hundreds of millions of years--but the organisms
are not the same species for the whole time. For example, modern
coelecanths are in an entirely different family from those known from
fossils.

OTOH, species under environmental pressure do change morphologically,
resulting in new species that can be discriminated from the old by eye.
I find it interesting that you, above, note that features appear,
disappear, and appear again; but don't understand that that only happens
under environmental pressure--while here, where environmental pressure
isn't an issue, you raise it. Funny.

> The first living cell created itself?

No one says that. They do say that a population of complex organisms
without cell walls did develop lipid proto-cell walls that evolved into
the kind of cell walls with which we are familiar.

> Yeah, sure........ wanna sell me the Eiffel Tower, too?

Well, you've already bought the Brooklyn Bridge...

[Terry Cross]

You didn't read the rest of me post. Believing Evolution is like
being a python in a pasture. Once you swallow the bull, the tail just
follows.

TCross

[RichTravsky]

curtjester1 wrote:
>
> http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> CJ

Most amusing. Several dealing with aspects of biology that
no one, much less cretinists, knew about but do now thanks
to science. And science continues to research these. For
example, we now know organic molecules form naturally
in space.

Cretinists proceed on the basis of proof by incredulity. If
they can't understand, why, some sky pixie had to be involved,
never once wondering or answering where the sky pixie came
from. So because something LOOKS like it was designed, why
it had to be, and they are unable to grasp anything further.

Get back to us when you've looked into such things as
artificial cells and synthetic biology.

For extra credit, explain how the genesis myth of breathing on
dust creates life, and how taking a rib from a human male can
be turned immediately into a human female, while leaving
the human male with the same number of ribs on each side...

For more extra credit, explain how the universe is billions of
years old when cretinism dogmaticly asserts only a few
thousands.

[RichTravsky]

And taking a rib from a human male can be turned immediately into a

human female, while leaving the human male with the same number of

ribs on each side is?

[RichTravsky]

Terry Cross wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://creation.com/15-questions
> >
> > > CJ
> >
> > ================
> >
> > Evolution is illogical.
> >
> > - moshe
>
> Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> from the lack. Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to

What false premises?

> force the logical derivation of the Atheist's foregone conclusions.
> Each time a path of logic is shown to lead to some other conclusion,
> the premises are readjusted.

The people who researched and deveolped evolution were religious people.

They went where the evidence led.

[RichTravsky]

moshe wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 1:30 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/11/2013 11:44 AM, moshe wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>http://creation.com/15-questions
> >
> > >> CJ
> >
> > > ================
> >
> > > Evolution is illogical.
> >
> > In what way? It seems supremely logical to me.
>
> =================
>
> For example, read that link that the first poster gave.
>
> Just going from memory of what I studies 20 years ago:
>
> The dating methods are stupid.
> How do they establish the dating methods? by comparing to the fossil
> layers.
> How do they date the fossil layers? by comparing to the dating
> methods.
> That is circular reasoning.

Your logic is completely lacking. Dating is done by other means
first. See

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

for overviews of the various methods.

> Testing residual lead and uranium levels.
> But that presumes to know what the original content in the rock was,
> and it presumes to know that the rock has not been affected by
> environment since the rock was first created.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
...
Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has
occurred ...
...

and the original amount is determined by the RATIO of isotopes.

> The species lines that have been created in the past are completely
> bogus, with certain features appearing and then disappearing and then
> appearing again and then disappearing again.
>
> Some species have remained unchanged for millions of years (allegedly)
> even though the environment dramatically changed many, many times in
> those millions of years which should have created pressure on the DNA
> to change / evolve during those millions of years.
>
> The first living cell created itself?
> Yeah, sure........ wanna sell me the Eiffel Tower, too?

Why not, you bought turning a rib into a human female.

[RichTravsky]

So, you believe the bull of turning a rib into a human?

[Terry Cross]

On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> > > > CJ
>
> > > ================
>
> > > Evolution is illogical.
>
> > > - moshe
>
> > Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > from the lack.  Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
>
> What false premises?

Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
That had problems. So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
equilibrium. That had problems. So PE is readjusted to ... etc.

[Tom McDonald]

On 2/13/2013 6:32 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://creation.com/15-questions
>>
>>>>> CJ
>>
>>>> ================
>>
>>>> Evolution is illogical.
>>
>>>> - moshe
>>
>>> Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
>>> from the lack. Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
>>> Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
>>
>> What false premises?
>
> Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> That had problems. So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> equilibrium. That had problems. So PE is readjusted to ... etc.

So your problem with the theory of evolution is that it changes as it
learns more about how biology works? What would be a better approach,
from your point of view? Should we just pick one idea and stick with it,
no matter what the facts show?

Really?

[Terry Cross]

On Feb 13, 4:49 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 6:32 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> >>>>> CJ
>
> >>>> ================
>
> >>>> Evolution is illogical.
>
> >>>> - moshe
>
> >>> Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> >>> from the lack.  Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> >>> Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
>
> >> What false premises?
>
> > Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> > That had problems.  So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> > equilibrium.  That had problems.  So PE is readjusted to ... etc.
>
> So your problem with the theory of evolution is that it changes as it
> learns more about how biology works?

If that were the case, I wouldn't mind. But punctuated equilibrium
had nothing to do with advances in biology. It was, instead, a
bedrock change in the theory adopted to explain the increasingly
anomalous data showed the original bedrock presumptions of the theory
were erroneous.

In short, Darwin had been falsified by the fossil record. Rather than
admit it, its supporters rebuilt the theory from the ground up and
pretended it was the same theory. The problem is fraud science.

> What would be a better approach,
> from your point of view?

Admit that Darwin had been falsified.

> Should we just pick one idea and stick with it,
> no matter what the facts show?

Go to a mirror and practice the phrase, "I don't know." Say it a few
hundred times until you can say it without stuttering or making
excuses. Then try it out on your friends in a few non-critical
situation. Watch their reaction.

If a scientist really does not know, she should learn to say "I don't
know." Of course, it will be bad for her funding, troublesome in the
classroom, problematic at review time, and may impact her pension.
And that is the institutional problem with Modern Science -- it has
too many vested interests to produce honest answers.


> Really?

Really.

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

No, that isn't what Punk Eek is, nor what it was developed to do. It was
to explain one aspect of the fossil record, and it was based on existing
evolutionary theory. It had been prefigured by earlier work, and merely
extended it.

> In short, Darwin had been falsified by the fossil record.

No, evolution (which is what you meant when you wrote 'Darwin') has been
continually strengthened by advances in the fossil record. It fits
exactly work from other fields of evolutionary biology, such as
genetics. The 'tree' we discover in the fossil record is exactly matched
by the 'trees' from every other relevant field of science.

> Rather than
> admit it, its supporters rebuilt the theory from the ground up and
> pretended it was the same theory. The problem is fraud science.

The problem is that you have an agenda to mislead others (and perhaps
yourself--though you could just be a scientific illiterate) about what
we do know, and are discovering, about how life develops and changes
over time.

>
>> What would be a better approach,
>> from your point of view?
>
> Admit that Darwin had been falsified.

That would be admitting to a lie. Darwin's ideas have been improved, and
some of them have been found to be wrong; but the ToE has not been
falsified, in the face of vast efforts by scientists to do just that.

>> Should we just pick one idea and stick with it,
>> no matter what the facts show?
>
>
> Go to a mirror and practice the phrase, "I don't know." Say it a few
> hundred times until you can say it without stuttering or making
> excuses. Then try it out on your friends in a few non-critical
> situation. Watch their reaction.
>
> If a scientist really does not know, she should learn to say "I don't
> know." Of course, it will be bad for her funding, troublesome in the
> classroom, problematic at review time, and may impact her pension.
> And that is the institutional problem with Modern Science -- it has
> too many vested interests to produce honest answers.

Methinks you don't get the processes of hypothesis and theory-making. It
involves starting from "I don't know" (or, more accurately, "Hmm. That's
odd."), and then learning to know more about that bit of admitted
ignorance.

If you knew how science works, you'd know that a scientists who found a
major, glaring error in evolution would have her career in science
made--and probably would get a Nobel Prize. Your skewed view of science
seems more to be based on what happens regularly to religious folks who
deviate from their particular religion's party line.

So it looks like you fell for Ben Stein's, "Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed", which has been comprehensively debunked by (gasp) the truth.
That's not a good thing.


>> Really?
>
> Really.

So your ignorance and propaganda isn't a mistake, or a bug--to you, it's
a feature. Good to know.

[RichTravsky]

Terry Cross wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Terry Cross wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >http://creation.com/15-questions
> >
> > > > > CJ
> >
> > > > ================
> >
> > > > Evolution is illogical.
> >
> > > > - moshe
> >
> > > Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > > from the lack. Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > > Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
> >
> > What false premises?
>
> Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> That had problems. So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> equilibrium. That had problems. So PE is readjusted to ... etc.

Amazing how increasing knowledge works. Like medicine. No more evil
spirits causing disease, right?

> > > force the logical derivation of the Atheist's foregone conclusions.
> > > Each time a path of logic is shown to lead to some other conclusion,
> > > the premises are readjusted.
> >
> > The people who researched and deveolped evolution were religious people.
> >
> > They went where the evidence led.

Silence.

[RichTravsky]

Terry Cross wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 4:49 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/13/2013 6:32 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Terry Cross wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>http://creation.com/15-questions
> >
> > >>>>> CJ
> >
> > >>>> ================
> >
> > >>>> Evolution is illogical.
> >
> > >>>> - moshe
> >
> > >>> Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > >>> from the lack. Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > >>> Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
> >
> > >> What false premises?
> >
> > > Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> > > That had problems. So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> > > equilibrium. That had problems. So PE is readjusted to ... etc.
> >
> > So your problem with the theory of evolution is that it changes as it
> > learns more about how biology works?
>
> If that were the case, I wouldn't mind. But punctuated equilibrium

It is the case.

[Terry Cross]

On Feb 17, 6:37 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 4:49 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/13/2013 6:32 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> > > >>>>> CJ
>
> > > >>>> ================
>
> > > >>>> Evolution is illogical.
>
> > > >>>> - moshe
>
> > > >>> Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > > >>> from the lack.  Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > > >>> Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
>
> > > >> What false premises?
>
> > > > Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> > > > That had problems.  So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> > > > equilibrium.  That had problems.  So PE is readjusted to ... etc.
>
> > > So your problem with the theory of evolution is that it changes as it
> > > learns more about how biology works?
>
> > If that were the case, I wouldn't mind.  But punctuated equilibrium
>
> It is the case.

Nah. The fossil record falsified Darwin. So they sent him in for a
facelift, a new hot air filter, and an automatic transmission so he
could argue both sides of the "million to one/inevitability" question.

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

Nah, that never happened. If you think it did, perhaps you would quote
(not quotemine) Gould to that effect.

I'll make the popcorn.

[Terry Cross]

On Feb 17, 6:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Terry Cross wrote:
> > > > On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> > > > > > CJ
>
> > > > > ================
>
> > > > > Evolution is illogical.
>
> > > > > - moshe
>
> > > > Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > > > from the lack.  Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > > > Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
>
> > > What false premises?
>
> > Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> > That had problems.  So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> > equilibrium.  That had problems.  So PE is readjusted to ... etc.
>
> Amazing how increasing knowledge works. Like medicine. No more evil
> spirits causing disease, right?

Well, let's consider. Germs are living things and you can't see 'em
and they cause disease and they thrive on human misery. How is that
different from evil spirits?

TCross

[RichTravsky]

Heard of microscopes?

[Tom McDonald]

This may be the stupidest thing she's ever written here. It's astounding.

[Terry Cross]

Are you requesting me to reprint Gould's confession?

> I'll make the popcorn.

That would be a copyright violation.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

When people said diseases were caused by demons, nobody had heard of
microscopes, not even you. And you have not answered the question.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

Rich cannot answer the question, and neither can you, apparently. But
you do a good mumble and gnashing of teeth.

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

If it would address my point, yes.

>> I'll make the popcorn.
>
> That would be a copyright violation.

No, it wouldn't. You can quote relevant bits of copyrighted material for
the purposes of criticism or discussion. Which is what I'm asking for.

Or are you just trying to weasel out of addressing my point?

[Tom McDonald]

We were discussing how increasing knowledge works, and the example was
the discovery of microscopic pathogens. Pathogens are different from
evil spirits because, with advances in scientific instrumentation, we
can study them and devise remedies for them. That is different from evil
spirits in that, with evil spirits, there is no possible way to devise
scientific tests or instrumentation to measure them nor to create
methods of scientifically remedying them.

If you disagree, perhaps you could suggest a potentially fruitful avenue
of scientific inquiry, along with the instrumentation required to
measure and study the issue, that would be congruent with the work done
on germs.

I'm getting tired of popcorn for these spectacles. Perhaps it's time to
learn how to make a deep-fried blooming onion!

[Terry Cross]

The truth of the problem is not revealed in Gould, but in Darwin's
thesis. As Darwin states repeatedly, species change by an infinity of
incremental changes selected through the generations by the
circumstances of life. This doctrine is bedrock to the thesis,
implicit and explicit throughout the statement of the theory. For
example, in Chapter 14:

+++++++++++
As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of
intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species
in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may
be asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us?
+++++++++++

"An interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed."
When Gould proposed his new scenario of leaping mutations, he
disrupted the whole structure. It is like suggesting, "If hot gasses
did not expand, I wonder how a gasoline engine would work?"

Gould does not confront the problem -- he merely evades it. "Well,
maybe I didn't have a flat tire. Maybe I was late because I was
playing cards with the boys. It doesn't really matter, does it?"
Yes, it does really matter, and we are offended by the base deceit.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

You don't get points for offensive speech and nasty attitude. You are
being no more rational the Grand Inquisitor.

> > Rich cannot answer the question, and neither can you, apparently. But
> > you do a good mumble and gnashing of teeth.
>
> > TCross
>
> We were discussing how increasing knowledge works, and the example was
> the discovery of microscopic pathogens. Pathogens are different from
> evil spirits because, with advances in scientific instrumentation, we
> can study them and devise remedies for them. That is different from evil
> spirits in that, with evil spirits, there is no possible way to devise
> scientific tests or instrumentation to measure them nor to create
> methods of scientifically remedying them.

What is the basis for that statement? Humans certainly attempted in
various ways to address the problem of evil spirits. Assembling a
catalog of the attempts should not be necessary. Nobody gives a hoot
whether the remedy is "scientific" as long as it works, particularly
given the fact that the definition of "scientific" has changed with
the history of science.

> If you disagree, perhaps you could suggest a potentially fruitful avenue
> of scientific inquiry, along with the instrumentation required to
> measure and study the issue, that would be congruent with the work done
> on germs.

You have not shown that germs are different from "evil spirits," which
were theorized as invisible living agents antagonistic to human
life.

> I'm getting tired of popcorn for these spectacles. Perhaps it's time to
> learn how to make a deep-fried blooming onion!

An onion would be appropriate to celebrate the search for truth.

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

I asked you not to quotemine, and to quote Gould directly. You failed.

Why are you not offended by your own base deceit?

[Terry Cross]

Why not ask me to quote Sydney Omar? Who gave you the scepter?

> You failed.

I was not being tested.

> Why are you not offended by your own base deceit?

I made no promise and had no obligation to live by your rules. Hence,
I practiced no deceit.

Deal with the issues instead of these silly games.

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

What weak sauce you make. Science works to deal with pathogens; religion
has never worked to deal with evil spirits--certainly not with any sort
of consistency or reliability.

I'm not surprised that you can't make coherent and relevant replies.
Could you try harder to do so in future?

[Tom McDonald]

Now *that'* comedy gold! You, asking me to deal with the issues instead
of playing silly games! <wipes eyes, laughs some more>

[Terry Cross]

You compare the science of today with religion of 500 years ago, or
the religion of lands where science is not available. But the
religion of those ancient days gave birth to philosophy and natural
philosophy to science. Science exists today only because of its
parentage in religion.

> I'm not surprised that you can't make coherent and relevant replies.
> Could you try harder to do so in future?

Those who can read and understand, let them do so. I will not attempt
(or "try harder") to open your eyes and ears. In short, service not
available. Call back some other time.

TCross

[RichTravsky]

RichTravsky wrote:
>
> Terry Cross wrote:
> >

> > On Feb 11, 11:03 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 1:30 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2/11/2013 11:44 AM, moshe wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>http://creation.com/15-questions
> > >
> > > > >> CJ
> > >
> > > > > ================
> > >
> > > > > Evolution is illogical.
> > >
> > > > In what way? It seems supremely logical to me.
> > >
> > > =================
> > >
> > > For example, read that link that the first poster gave.
> > >
> > > Just going from memory of what I studies 20 years ago:
> > >
> > > The dating methods are stupid.
> > > How do they establish the dating methods? by comparing to the fossil
> > > layers.
> > > How do they date the fossil layers? by comparing to the dating
> > > methods.
> > > That is circular reasoning.
> > >

> > > Testing residual lead and uranium levels.
> > > But that presumes to know what the original content in the rock was,
> > > and it presumes to know that the rock has not been affected by
> > > environment since the rock was first created.
> > >

> > > The species lines that have been created in the past are completely
> > > bogus, with certain features appearing and then disappearing and then
> > > appearing again and then disappearing again.
> > >
> > > Some species have remained unchanged for millions of years (allegedly)
> > > even though the environment dramatically changed many, many times in
> > > those millions of years which should have created pressure on the DNA
> > > to change / evolve during those millions of years.
> > >
> > > The first living cell created itself?
> > > Yeah, sure........ wanna sell me the Eiffel Tower, too?
> >

> > You didn't read the rest of me post. Believing Evolution is like
> > being a python in a pasture. Once you swallow the bull, the tail just
> > follows.
> >
> > TCross
>

> So, you believe the bull of turning a rib into a human?

No answer...

[RichTravsky]

That was my point, thanks to things like microscopes science disproved the
evil spirit nonsense...

[RichTravsky]

Waiting...

[RichTravsky]

Terry Cross wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 7:45 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/17/2013 9:37 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> > > Terry Cross wrote:
> > >> On Feb 17, 6:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Terry Cross wrote:
> > >>>> On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Terry Cross wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>http://creation.com/15-questions
> >
> >

> > >>>>>>> Evolution is illogical.
> >
> > >>>>>>> - moshe
> >
> > >>>>>> Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > >>>>>> from the lack. Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > >>>>>> Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
> >
> > >>>>> What false premises?
> >
> > >>>> Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> > >>>> That had problems. So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> > >>>> equilibrium. That had problems. So PE is readjusted to ... etc.
> >
> > >>> Amazing how increasing knowledge works. Like medicine. No more evil
> > >>> spirits causing disease, right?
> >
> > >> Well, let's consider. Germs are living things and you can't see 'em
> > >> and they cause disease and they thrive on human misery. How is that
> > >> different from evil spirits?
> >
> > > Heard of microscopes?
> >
> > This may be the stupidest thing she's ever written here. It's astounding.
>
> Rich cannot answer the question, and neither can you, apparently. But
> you do a good mumble and gnashing of teeth.

Can you answer how a human male rib can be turned into a human female?

[moshe]

=======================

Omnipotence.

- moshe

[moshe]

=====================

I just now found your post.

I also see that you have several posts in which you call creationists
"cretinists".

No reputable workplace will hire a person who is hateful like that.

- moshe

[RichTravsky]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBbUuKmV60

[moshe]

=======================

God is omnipotent.

Rich is an immature jerk.

- moshe

[RichTravsky]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/9c6ac8d05d290130181b001dd8b71c47

[moshe]

> http://assets.amuniversal.com/9c6ac8d05d290130181b001dd8b71c47-

================

If Rich is seeking to prove that he is an immature jerk,
he is succeeding.

- moshe

[Tom McDonald]

Well, that's as may be; but he is showing you up pretty well. The
Doonesberry cartoon above describes you and others of your ilk pretty
well--when the facts don't fit, find someone to make up some facts that do.

Meanwhile, science will continue to work on actual facts. It has surely
done more for the betterment of the world than your omnipotent god.

[moshe]

=================

Many scientists with advanced degrees believe in God,
believe that God created the world,
believe that evolution is a lie.

So don't pull that crap claiming that people who believe in God
and who reject evolution are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies.

- moshe

[moshe]

> - moshe-

====================

"Creationists holding science doctorates"
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

- moshe

[Terry Cross]

On Feb 28, 8:18 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/2013 9:57 AM, moshe wrote:
>
>
> Meanwhile, science will continue to work on actual facts.

Heh. How long it been since you seen one?

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

A couple of minutes ago. Just read an article about the discovery of a
third van Allen belt around Earth. You?

[Tom McDonald]

It really doesn't help you in this discussion, since creationists who
are scientists have to agree to ignore or explain away facts that don't
fit with their religious views. At least that's the case in fields that
relate to origins (biology, geology, etc.)

The mere holding of a degree in a field of science does not mean that
the degree holder will do decent scientific work where his/her faith
might be challenged by the results.

[moshe]

=================

That is exactly true of those atheists who hold on to evolution as
their religion.

They refuse to acknowledge facts which do not fit the evolution that
they already insist on believing.

- moshe

[Tom McDonald]

Prove it.

[moshe]

======================

You prove your claim.

My claim was merely your own claim thrown back at you.

- moshe

[moshe]

================

Michelle Obama will claim that 3 belts around Earth is proof of Earth
obesity.

- moshe

[Terry Cross]

The Van Allen belts have nothing to do with Evolution. Check to see
if your headset is plugged in.

TCross

[RichTravsky]

http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=australopithecus&submit=yes&x=0&y=0

http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=evolution&submit=yes&x=0&y=0

http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_area=sci&y=0&fulltext=australopithecus&x=0&submit=yes

[Tom McDonald]

Find a creation 'science' organization that doesn't have a statement of
faith that requires members doing science to conform scientific findings
to a biblical reading with which they concur. I haven't found any such
organization that doesn't. IOW, when facts conflict with faith, faith
has to win. That's not scientific.

> My claim was merely your own claim thrown back at you.

OK, now find any normal science organization that has the equivalent of
a statement of faith that requires them to ignore any facts whatsoever
for any reason. I won't hold my breath.

[moshe]

================

Such science organizations state that evolution is fact
and they ostracize anyone who believes in creationism.

You don't think that will skew their pro-evolution thinking
during experminents and investigations and in
analyzing results?

- moshe

[RichTravsky]

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the lack. Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What false premises?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That had problems. So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equilibrium. That had problems. So PE is readjusted to ... etc.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazing how increasing knowledge works. Like medicine. No more evil
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spirits causing disease, right?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, let's consider. Germs are living things and you can't see 'em
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they cause disease and they thrive on human misery. How is that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from evil spirits?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heard of microscopes?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This may be the stupidest thing she's ever written here. It's astounding.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich cannot answer the question, and neither can you, apparently. But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do a good mumble and gnashing of teeth.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you answer how a human male rib can be turned into a human female?
> >

> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Omnipotence.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBbUuKmV60

> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> God is omnipotent.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> Rich is an immature jerk.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>http://assets.amuniversal.com/9c6ac8d05d290130181b001dd8b71c47-
> >

> > >>>>>>>> If Rich is seeking to prove that he is an immature jerk,
> > >>>>>>>> he is succeeding.
> >
> > >>>>>>> Well, that's as may be; but he is showing you up pretty well. The
> > >>>>>>> Doonesberry cartoon above describes you and others of your ilk pretty
> > >>>>>>> well--when the facts don't fit, find someone to make up some facts that do.
> >
> > >>>>>>> Meanwhile, science will continue to work on actual facts. It has surely
> > >>>>>>> done more for the betterment of the world than your omnipotent god.
> >

> > >>>>>> Many scientists with advanced degrees believe in God,
> > >>>>>> believe that God created the world,
> > >>>>>> believe that evolution is a lie.
> >
> > >>>>>> So don't pull that crap claiming that people who believe in God
> > >>>>>> and who reject evolution are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies.
> >

> > >>>>> "Creationists holding science doctorates"
> > >>>>>http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
> >

> > >>>> It really doesn't help you in this discussion, since creationists who
> > >>>> are scientists have to agree to ignore or explain away facts that don't
> > >>>> fit with their religious views. At least that's the case in fields that
> > >>>> relate to origins (biology, geology, etc.)
> >
> > >>>> The mere holding of a degree in a field of science does not mean that
> > >>>> the degree holder will do decent scientific work where his/her faith
> > >>>> might be challenged by the results.
> >

> > >>> That is exactly true of those atheists who hold on to evolution as
> > >>> their religion.
> >
> > >>> They refuse to acknowledge facts which do not fit the evolution that
> > >>> they already insist on believing.
> >

> > >> Prove it.

> >
> > > You prove your claim.
> >
> > Find a creation 'science' organization that doesn't have a statement of
> > faith that requires members doing science to conform scientific findings
> > to a biblical reading with which they concur. I haven't found any such
> > organization that doesn't. IOW, when facts conflict with faith, faith
> > has to win. That's not scientific.
> >
> > > My claim was merely your own claim thrown back at you.
> >
> > OK, now find any normal science organization that has the equivalent of
> > a statement of faith that requires them to ignore any facts whatsoever
> > for any reason. I won't hold my breath.
>

> Such science organizations state that evolution is fact

It is fact.

> and they ostracize anyone who believes in creationism.

Something that has no scientific evidence.

> You don't think that will skew their pro-evolution thinking
> during experminents and investigations and in
> analyzing results?

No. How could it?

[moshe]

======================

"A scientist who suggested creationism be discussed in school science
classes as a “worldview” if students raise questions has been banished
from his UK Royal Society job for advocating the open exchange of
information."
http://www.wnd.com/2008/09/75620/

"NASA specialist claims he was fired over intelligent design"
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/11/former-nasa-specialist-claims-was-fired-over-intelligent-design/

"Ben Stein: I Was Fired For Being A Creationist"
http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-stein-i-was-fired-for-being-a-creationist-2009-8

- moshe

[Terry Cross]

> "NASA specialist claims he was fired over intelligent design"http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/11/former-nasa-specialist-clai...
>
> "Ben Stein: I Was Fired For Being A Creationist"http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-stein-i-was-fired-for-being-a-crea...


Nothing like a little book burning and black-balling to encourage the
free market of ideas and the progress of science. Obviously, anyone
who questions Evolution is not a scientist and is holding her position
only by fraud.

Book burning works so well to promote intellectual excellence, and
Evolution uses the tactics so successfully, the same were adopted for
the Holocaust. Obviously, if any historian wants to question the
Holocaust, she is not a historian and is holding her position only by
fraud.

TCross

[moshe]

========================

"Poor persecuted Holocaust deniers"?

Atheist "Abyss" irritated me.

Pete with his unBiblical ideas irritated me.

But pro-Nazi, anti-Semite, Jehovah-hating, Moses-hating,
Mosaic-Law-hating, Bible-hating, pretend-to-be-a-follower-of-Jesus,
pretend-I-never-answered-her-questions Terry Cross makes my blood
boil.

By pretending to be a follower of Jesus,
that anti-Semite is attempting to destroy Christianity from within.

And she is giving Christianity a bad name among un-believers, too.
She gives un-believers the impression that anti-Semitism
is acceptable within Christianity.

Terry Cross, I am going to make sure that everyone knows *exactly*
what you are.

With my heart problem, I am weak as a kitten.
But I will use what little strength I have to post you out of the
water.

- moshe

[Terry Cross]

I do not intend to be the author of your demise, Moshe. But neither
am I prepared to let you play the tyrant simply because you are "weak
as a kitten." I suggest you limit your internet time to 4 hours per
day, nothing more. That is all I can afford, though it is scattered
throughout the day. I also suggest you give your glands a rest and
stop boiling your blood -- it accomplishes nothing. Follow Paul's
advice:

Be prepared to give everyone reason for your faith.

TCross

[moshe]

===========================

Readers,

Don't let Terry Cross convince you that she is a
"follower of Jesus",
because she is a fraud who hates everything about the Bible.

Here is a sample of what she has posted in the past:

------------------begin quote--------------

Newsgroups: alt.bible, alt.christnet.christianlife,
alt.bible.prophecy, alt.messianic
From: Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Aug 2 2011 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: Genocide by God

Jehovah of the Bible is transparently a tribal god for the
justification of tribal evil. Jehovah has no more claim on reality
or
ethics than the other "Gott Mit Uns" throughout history. Jehovah has
not been a force for good among the people who believe in him --
quite
otherwise. The believing Jews are notoriously unethical throughout
history in every society where they lived -- quite psychotic,
actually. They say the world hates them, but they seem to need to be
hated to justify their daily and hourly crimes against their
neighbors
and humanity generally.

------------------begin quote--------------

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish, alt.religion.christian,
alt.messianic,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
From: "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com>
Date: 29 Apr 2006 16:17:41 -0700
Local: Sat, Apr 29 2006 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: Jesus - an illegitimate child

Christians, Muslims, and Jews are all part of the Mosaic tradition.
When you wonder about the cruel, mysogenic practices of all three
religions, you need look no further than Moses, the crazed psychotic
who fathered them all.

------------------begin quote--------------

Newsgroups: alt.messianic, alt.christnet.christianlife,
alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.bible.prophecy,
aus.religion.christian
From: Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 11:59 am
Subject: Re: Looking at Both Sides of the Paradox

Let us consider that that Moses was a psychotic who was not a prophet
but a madman who murdered Hebrews as eagerly as he ordered them to
murder each other or to murder Gentiles. Son of Sam was not
expressing some antithetical paradoxical through-the-looking glass
aspect of God's infinite truth. Moses was just wrong. Moses was a
"bloody man," just as his wife said.

See how easy that is? Of course, it leaves Israel in the dust, but
that is where it belongs. It leaves the Pharisees in the dust, but
that is where Jesus left them, along with the Mosaic superstitions,
Kosher, Sabbath, the golden Temple, the continuous animal sacrifices
that made the house of God an abattoir, the peddling priests and
money
changers that turned the Temple into a house of thieves, the chattel
marriages that made slaves of all women, and the hatred of Gentiles
that made the Jews in turn a hated race.

------------------begin quote--------------

Newsgroups: alt.messianic, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.messianic.yeshua,
soc.culture.jewish, alt.christnet.christianlife
From: Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, May 27 2009 11:55 pm
Subject: Re: Should Jews convert to Christianity?

an oppressive religion founded on the image of a
psychotic monster.

------------------begin quote--------------

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish, alt.war.civil.usa, alt.war.nuclear,
alt.messianic
From: Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 21:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, May 24 2009 11:44 pm
Subject: Re: Over 40% of people believe the Holocaust never occurred

Moses was not a Jew, but a Levite, a terrible war criminal, and a
psychotic hater of women, sex, and Gentiles

------------------begin quote--------------

Newsgroups: alt.messianic, alt.christnet.christianlife,
alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.bible.prophecy,
aus.religion.christian
From: Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Sep 27 2012 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: The real Jesus

the psychotic Moses

------------------end quote--------------

- moshe

[Terry Cross]

If you insist on re-posting excerpts from my best work over and over
again, you might not accomplish what you intend. ;-)

TCross

[moshe]

====================

Nazis such as yourself will be attracted to your posts,
so that you will have your own Nazi party going.
That is what you are winking about, you Nazi.
Let's see how much winking you will do
in the lake of fire of Revelation 21:8.

Normal people will be digusted with your hateful posts,
so that they will know exactly what you are
and they will know to stay far, far from you.

I am presently compiling Terry Cross' posts in various categories such
as:
hatred of Bible
hatred of God
hatred of Jews
lies about Jesus

What Terry Cross has posted is truly disgusting.

The thread devoted to the subject will be posted soon
if God keeps me on Earth a little longer.

- moshe

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/2/2013 4:55 AM, moshe wrote:
> On Mar 2, 4:35 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 1:29 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 4:16 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 2, 12:57 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 2, 3:26 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 9:27 pm, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> ======================
>>
>>>>>>> "A scientist who suggested creationism be discussed in school science

>>>>>>> classes as a �worldview� if students raise questions has been banished

I disagree with you about evolution and science, but I do agree that
Cross is a despicable bigot. She may not be worth spending too much time
and energy on, but that's of course your call.

[Kermit]

Wow. I doff my hat to you sir; you show remarkable patience.

I have trouble talking for long to folks who reject reality for
emotional needs. I understand occasional short term emotional
overloads, but Creationists have made a lifelong habit of ...self-
delusion.

kermit

[Kermit]

Yes, it is. Evolution is the only model that fits all the facts, and
explains the pertinent ones.

It is as well-supported as any scientific theory, and far better than
most. The evidentiary support comes from multiple fields of science.

Do you consider atoms and gravity to be facts?

> and they ostracize anyone who believes in creationism.

Only when it interferes with their doing science. No reason an
engineer or a a janitor can't be a Creationist in such an
organization, but to be a creationist (as we mean it here, a literal
reading of the Bible) is incompatible with being a scientist; it
requires dismissing large bodies of verifiable data, and embracing a
model that is some respects is unfalsifiable in principle but in
others has already been falsified.

>
> You don't think that will skew their pro-evolution thinking
> during experminents and investigations and in
> analyzing results?

Scientists are not "pro evolution" so much as they are pro-fact and
pro-scientific method. So far evolution (actually a collection of
related theories) is the only testable model that fits all the
verifiable facts. If you're a creationist, you're not doing science.
Science isn't about coming to the right conclusions (which is the test
for religious affiliations), it's using the right *methods* to come to
conclusions.

Religious people can do excellent science, and I can think of several
that do fine paleontology. But they do not believe that their creator
god is lying to them; they assume that the world around us is not some
cruel joke of an illusion, and the best way to understand it is to
study it and test our conclusions conclusions. My work out buddy in
college, a devout Christian who earned his PhD in microbiology, said
"Science is studying how God does things."

>
> - moshe

kermit

[Kermit]

On Mar 1, 9:27 pm, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

He isn't a scientist, he's an MD by training and now a bioethicist.
From Wikipedia:
"As early as November 2006, Reiss suggested that, rather than
dismissing creationism as a "misconception," teachers should take the
time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis. In September
2008, his views were presented in some media reports as lending
support to teaching creationism as a legitimate point of view; however
both he and the Royal Society later stated that this was a
misrepresentation. Reiss stressed that the topic should not be taught
as science, but rather should be construed as a cultural "worldview."
Reiss argued that it was more effective to engage with pupils' ideas
about creationism, rather than to obstruct discussion with those who
do not accept the scientific version of the evolution of species.

In July 2009, he led a number of the UK's most senior scientists in
writing to the Schools Secretary Ed Balls to complain that Ofsted's
proposed new curriculum for primary schools did not mention
evolution."

So he wanted Creationism presented in British schools, but wanted to
explain why it wasn't science. The general public misunderstood and
thought he wanted religion taught in the public school science
classes, as US creationists do, and the outcry forced him out.

>
> "NASA specialist claims he was fired over intelligent design"http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/11/former-nasa-specialist-clai...

No. From Wiki:
"On March 12, 2012, Los Angeles Superior Court took opening statements
on the case in which former-JPL employee David Coppedge brought suit
against the Lab due to workplace discrimination and wrongful
termination. In the suit, Coppedge alleges that he first lost his
"team lead" status on JPL's Cassini-Huygens mission in 2009 and then
was fired in 2011 because of his evangelical Christian beliefs and
specifically his belief in intelligent design. Conversely, JPL,
through the Caltech lawyers representing the laboratory, allege that
Coppedge's termination was simply due to budget cuts and his demotion
from team lead was because of harassment complaints and from on-going
conflicts with his co-workers. Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige
issued a final ruling in favor of JPL on January 16, 2013."

>
> "Ben Stein: I Was Fired For Being A Creationist"http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-stein-i-was-fired-for-being-a-crea...

No, he was fired because he was a jerk and his financial columns were
way off the mark.

From
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/ben-stein-loses-new-york_n_253855.html
"You’ll forgive me if I take some small measure of credit for this
one: after something in the region of 35,000 words of the Ben Stein
Watch, the world’s worst financial columnist has finally been fired
from the New York Times. And I couldn’t be happier. The reason was his
appearance in commercials for (and on the homepage of) freescore.com,
a sleazy company which exists only to extract large sums of money from
those who can least afford it."

>
> - moshe

kermit

[Terry Cross]

Science, properly conducted, will not be corrupted by the "wrong
attitude." But excluding people with the "wrong attitude" will
certainly corrupt society and in the end will stunt the growth of
science.

Let us consider the Lysenko example. Lysenko committed two great
wrongs to the people of Russia. The first was forwarding his own
brand of agriculture for which he did not have a solid scientific
base. That problem was bad enough, but it would not have been
sufficient to cause the devastation for which Lysenko is famous.

The real travesty was Lysenko's intellectual tyranny. If you
expressed disagreement with Lysenko, you were removed from your
position and possibly imprisoned. Soon, no one disagreed with
Lysenko, and his theories of agriculture were "universally accepted."
As a result, Russian agriculture suffered horribly for several
decades, with a resulting dearth of sufficient food to feed the
Russians.

The Wikipedia offers the following definition:
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or
distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined
conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social
or political objectives.

Evolution, as you describe it, is engaging in Lysenkoism. And the
penalties are predictable.

TCross

[RichTravsky]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/cdc-says-nightmare-bacteria-cre-superbug-killing-h/
...
"Hospitals ... don't have enough time to clean the beds. And also, these
bugs have evolved," he said on Fox News.
...


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23224-zoologger-the-only-virus-with-an-immune-system.html
...
The bacterium can store new memories by incorporating new fragments
of DNA every time it is attacked, says John van der Oost of
Wageningen University in the Netherlands. "It's an immune system and
it's adaptive." The system is found in 40 per cent of bacteria and
90 per cent of archaea, which means the adaptive immune systems of
vertebrates are far from unique.
...
It's yet another twist in the long-running battle between bacteria
and viruses, says van der Oost. "You have every kind of warfare you
can think of in the microbial world. That is why it evolves so fast."
...

[RichTravsky]

Terry Cross wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 12:30 pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 8:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > and they ostracize anyone who believes in creationism.
> >
> > > Something that has no scientific evidence.
> >
> > > > You don't think that will skew their pro-evolution thinking
> > > > during experminents and investigations and in
> > > > analyzing results?
> >
> > > No. How could it?
>
> Science, properly conducted, will not be corrupted by the "wrong
> attitude." But excluding people with the "wrong attitude" will
> certainly corrupt society and in the end will stunt the growth of
> science.

Check with Behe about the Dover trial on that...

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria
used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is
science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh
University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of theory was so
broad it would also include astrology.
...

> Let us consider the Lysenko example. Lysenko committed two great
> wrongs to the people of Russia. The first was forwarding his own
> brand of agriculture for which he did not have a solid scientific
> base. That problem was bad enough, but it would not have been
> sufficient to cause the devastation for which Lysenko is famous.
>
> The real travesty was Lysenko's intellectual tyranny. If you
> expressed disagreement with Lysenko, you were removed from your
> position and possibly imprisoned. Soon, no one disagreed with
> Lysenko, and his theories of agriculture were "universally accepted."
> As a result, Russian agriculture suffered horribly for several
> decades, with a resulting dearth of sufficient food to feed the
> Russians.
>
> The Wikipedia offers the following definition:
> Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or
> distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined
> conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social
> or political objectives.
>
> Evolution, as you describe it, is engaging in Lysenkoism. And the
> penalties are predictable.

Here is the link you omitted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

"Lysenko did not apply actual science."

"Support from Joseph Stalin gave Lysenko even more momentum and popularity.
In 1935, Lysenko compared his opponents in biology to the peasants who
still resisted the Soviet government's collectivization strategy, saying
that by opposing his theories the traditional geneticists were setting
themselves against Marxism. Stalin was in the audience when this speech
was made, and he was the first one to stand and applaud, calling out
"Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo." This event emboldened Lysenko and gave
him and his ally Prezent free rein to slander the geneticists who still
spoke out against him. "

"It is often suggested that Lysenko's success came solely from the desire
in the USSR to assert that heredity had only a limited role in human
development; that future generations, living under socialism, would be
purged of their 'bourgeois' or 'fascist' instincts. But Lysenko himself
never purported that his views could be applied to human biology; they
were relegated strictly to agriculture. He indeed attacked certain
reductionist views of heredity, like eugenics, but only as bourgeois
influences on science. Many scholarly works on Lysenkoism agree that
it was not based on human genetics. Stalin, however, wanted to believe
that Lysenkoism did apply to human genetics."

It is plain that what happened was that the political appeal outweighed
all other factors.

[RichTravsky]

Let's not omit this gem

[JTEM]

On Feb 11, 1:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://creation.com/15-questions
>

> CJ

#1. How did life originate?

Oddly, dismiss evolution and the question remains
as "God did it" leaves us with "How did God originate"?

Creationists simply replace a question they can't
answer with a question they can't grasp, and mistaken
this for an argument.

#2. How did the DNA code originate?

For all intents & purposes, this is simply a rephrasing
of question #1, sprinkled with a heaping portion of
idiocy. Get this: The site describes DNA as, "a
sophisticated language system with letters and words."

...you'd have to be on drugs.

#3. Mutations.

The so-called "Problem" with mutations doesn't actually
exists. It's simply a fantasy created by morons. First,
they talk about useful mutations being rare.

And?

The point, dear idiots, if they weren't rare than we'd
be a different species than our grandparents, now wouldn't
we? Everyone knows they're rare. Everyone understands
that they're rare. We get it. It was never in question
and it was never an issue. It's like claiming that Bees
can't fly because they're yellow. Well nobody said they
weren't yellow, much less that flight would be impossible
if they were yellow.

Nut jobs think of "Random mutations" as akin to a chimp
sitting down at a keyboard and "randomly" typing out a
few pages of a novel in perfect English.

This is idiocy.

Problem is, if a mutation is fatal then it doesn't get
passed on. It's gone. So if you want to stick with
the Chimp at the keyboard analogy, it would be like a
Chimp "Randomly" banging out letters, but if those
letters didn't form actual words then they wouldn't
stick to the page.

Get it?

The mutations have to be good enough to get by (the
letters the Chimp bangs out have to form a word) or
the mutations (letters) get dropped.

If you think of it this way, instead of the willfully
ignorant way of the creationists, it's easy to see
how mutations can lead to remarkable genetic changes.

#4. Natural Selection.

"Natural Selection" is misunderstood by nearly all
lay people, and creationists in particular.

It is perhaps better thought of as a result, and
certainly not as an intelligent agent nor a force.

"Natural Selection" is nearly impossible to predict
ahead of time. For example, if the climate changed
a forested area lost it's trees a species which
previously survived by exploiting the trees might
evolve to exploit grasses. Or it might evolve to
exploit a different environment like the water, or
dig underground, or turn from a herbivore to a
carnivore (or vice versa)... but we honestly have
no way of knowing in advance which it might be.

And, yes, the odds do say that it will be "None of
the above," that the population will fail to
adapt to the new environment and will instead die
out.

The vast majority of species to ever exist are
extinct.

#5. How did new biochemical pathways, which
involve multiple enzymes working together in
sequence, originate?

This is really just ANOTHER rephrasing of question
#1. It's like if I asked you how the automobile was
invented AND how the automobile engine was invented.
It's the same question, because if one doesn't
have an automobile engine then one doesn't have a car.

#6. Living things look like they were designed, so
how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

This is idiocy. Living things don't look like they
were designed at all. In fact, they look like they
weren't designed. The alternative is to claim that
you worship an imbecile.

As I pointed out, the vast majority of all species
to have ever lived are dead. They're extinct. They
are no more. So to claim that they look like they
were designed is to claim that they were designed by
a jackass who couldn't get it right even after a million
attempts.

Livings things on earth look like they are derived from
a common ancestor. As a matter of fact, it's quite
remarkable how DIFFERENT we look from each other considering
our common origins. Humans are usually said to share
about 98% of our DNA with Chimps, for example, because
we share a recent common ancestor, yet nobody is ever
going to mistaken a Chimp for a human.

#7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

This is a seriously dumb question, as it claims that
the best answer is to posit a supernatural being
which exists everywhere all at once, and in all time
periods... which far more complex and impossible for
us to imagine than multi-cellular life.

But, as it turns out there are numerous theories on
the subject, most of them sounding quite good, but
the one I find most plausible is simply this: In
tandem.

In other words, two or more single-cell life forms
evolve together (co dependently) -- perhaps one
bacteria feeding off the waste of another. Another
way of thinking of it as "Symbiosis" (Google it),
with the life forms eventually physically joining.

#8. How did sex originate?

Again, allow me to point out that it is an amazingly
dumb question -- at least in this context -- as sex
quite clearly DID originate. So in this context the
question isn't "How," it's "What is the best explanation
amongst those currently available."

According to creationists, the best explanation is an
all see, all powerful God with no origins of it's own
zapped it into existence just so he could later punish
anyone committed the "Sin" of enjoying it.

These same nut jobs ("Creationists") claim that
non-sexual reproduction is so much better, twice
the "fitness," furthering the mystery which they
conclude is not a mystery at all, but rather proof
of the aforementioned supernatural being.

Well, sexual reproduction has massive advantages
over asexual reproduction. It all comes down to
"Genetic Diversity."

Sexual reproduction creates genetic diversity --
the genetic deck is getting a small shuffle with
every generation.

Now it is correct that with asexual reproduction,
a species perfectly suited to it's environment has
a fantastic advantage. The drawback is that it's
a guarantee of extinction.

The earth isn't stagnant. The planet itself spins,
it's orbit is elliptical and even it's tilt changes.
The environments change. glaciers covered the north,
the sahara was in bloom and in many places you could
walk for miles out into what is today ocean.

The more genetic diversity a population has, the
better able it is to adapt to changes to it's
environment, the better it is at coping with new
challenges. Sexual reproduction is vastly superior
over the long term, across the many environmental
changes any particular part of the earth has seen,
which is why it is so dominant.

So why hasn't asexual reproduction vanished if it's
inferior?

Why would it? Getting rid of it would require an
intelligent agent -- some kind of guiding force --
to decide that it had to go. In evolution though,
what's good enough to get by stays and reproduces,
so even though asexual reproduction isn't as good
as sexual reproduction, it's still good enough to
survive.

Think of it this way: Some computers are better
than others, but any computer you see in the store
is by definition GOOD ENOUGH to be produced and
sold. Maybe they won't sell very many of them, but
so long as they sell enough to be profitable they'll
keep selling them.

#9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of
transitional fossils missing?

Simple answer: They're not.

Fossils are rare. The odds against any living
thing becoming fossilized are pretty bad. Some
environments are better than others for fossils,
but the usual odds are a million to one against
fossilization.

In some environments fossilization is pretty
much impossible.

there isn't a representative sampling of every
living species in the fossil record, and nobody
ever claimed that there is.

Secondly, "Transitional" fossils would be extremely
limited in time, place and numbers.

Species are quite happy to stay exactly the way
they are. The evolve pretty much because they
have to -- changes to their environment. Plus,
isolation is the usual engine of evolution. Birds,
for example, would find it difficult to adapt to
the unique conditions on an island if they were
in full contact with/interbreeding with a larger
mainland population. Natural selection would
actually keep them adapted to the mainland. But
if they were isolated from that mainland population
they would be free to adapt to the island. What
would happen in this case is that a beneficial
trait would arise and then this new population
(the one with this trait) would radiate out from
the island.

The "Transitional" forms in this case would only
exist in the physical location of the island,
assuming it was conducive to fossilization, they
would exist only in the strata dating to the time
of this isolation/adaptation and if they existed
at all they would most likely by in small numbers.

It gets worse.

We find fossils when they weather out of the ground,
but this isn't a new process. If you go back 50
million years ago the YOUNGEST Dinosaur fossils had
already started being weathered out of the rock AND
DESTROYED more than 15 million years earlier.

On the other hand, most of the fossils that remain
today -- the ones which haven't been weathered out
in the past -- would be unreachable. They would be
deep inside cliffs and mountains, deep underground
or the ocean, and we're never going to lay eyes on
them.

Add all this up and the odds of finding any
transitional fossil are pathetically small, and
yet you can fill telephone books with all the
transitional fossils that have been found.

Percentage wise their numbers are tiny, but in
terms of raw numbers we do have a great many
transitional fossils.

#10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over
supposed hundreds of millions of years

They don't.

They are changed. What you want to claim is that
they look to you, to your naked eye as very similar.

So what?

It's not just logical for a physical form which was
successful to be retained by closely related species,
but also by unrelated species.

Our modern rhino looks very similar to certain
dinosaurs -- the triceratops for example -- yet they
could hardly be further removed from each other. An
even better example is the ichthyosaur which looks
very similar to our modern dolphin but was a reptile
(Dolphins are mammals).

Different species often look alike because they
are overcoming many of the same challenges. "Form,"
as they say, "follows function."

So if completely unrelated species can look like
twins, it's not the least bit surprising that two
or more related species can look physically similar.

#11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence,
meaning, altruism and morality?

Another seriously dumb question in this context, with
this context being people who claim that it was all
created by a supernatural being that wasn't created.

And it's about consciousness, as terms like "Morality"
are undefined are situational. according to the bible,
Abraham was "Moral" for agreeing to murder his son. So
it's about consciousness, and towards that end...

To put it bluntly: consciousness would be difficult
to arrive at from self-replicating cells than it would
be impossible to arrive at via nothing at all. And,
yes, your creationist model begins with nothing: God
pops into existence from nothing, and then creates
everything... from nothing.

So, again, the question isn't really "How" but "What
is the best explanation amongst those available?"

There are theories, of course, so all I could do is
suggest that you try Googling up some of them and
enjoy the reading.

#12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling
tolerated?

This makes absolutely no sense, and a reading of the
explanation made no sense either. It claims
contradictions which evolutionary theory fails to
explain, but it basis these claims on the ridiculous
claim that everything is biological.

Behavior isn't necessary biological -- it's not
necessarily genetically programmed. Our capacity
for a behavior might be, but not a behavior.

#13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due
to evolution?

Well we could start with all the food you eat, all
the common domesticated animals including your dog
or cat.

Your annual flu shot.

HINT: If evolution didn't exist you'd never need
two. The flu virus wouldn't evolve.

Personally I think this is enough to fill your
little brains beyond capacity, but if you need
more just try Google. You're welcome.

#14. Science involves experimenting to figure out
how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution,
a theory about history, taught as if it is the same
as this operational science?

You reject science and then claim to attack
evolution on your misunderstanding of science...

Experiments are to test predictions. A theory
explains the evidence as well as provides the
basis for predictions. Evolution does both of
these. A hypothesis only ever attains the status
of "theory" after it has withstood the rigors of
time and repeated scientific observations and
experimentation.

The word "Theory" in science has a very precise
meaning which should never be confused with the
vernacular use of the word, as you do here.

Evolution explains the origins of species and
it provides the basis for everything from a
DNA test (parentage, criminal investigation)
to modern crops. There is no lack of validation,
not question as to it's importance to modern
science/society.

#15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a
dogmatic belief system that fails to explain
the evidence, taught in science classes?

This is idiocy. Your creationism -- Intelligent
Design -- is 100% purely religious, and yet you
immorally cast your own faults on to others.

Irony. Got to love it.


-- --


http://jtem.tumblr.com

[RichTravsky]

And another one

http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130314/srep01456/full/srep01456.html
Bed bugs evolved unique adaptive strategy to resist pyrethroid insecticides

[RichTravsky]

http://www.asianscientist.com/in-the-lab/falcon-genome-evolved-birds-of-prey-2013/

Researchers have published the first analysis of falcon genomes, providing
insights into the evolution of predatory adaptations in falcons. The genetic
insights gained may aid in the conservation of endangered falcon species.

[Terry Cross]

On Mar 26, 9:30 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> RichTravsky wrote:
>
> > RichTravsky wrote:
> > > RichTravsky wrote:
> > > > Terry Cross wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 28, 8:18 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 2/28/2013 9:57 AM, moshe wrote:
>
> > > > > > Meanwhile, science will continue to work on actual facts.
>
> > > > > Heh.  How long it been since you seen one?
>
> > > > > TCross
>
> > > >http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=australopithecus&submit=yes&x=0&y=0
>
> > > >http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=evolution&submit=yes&x=0&y=0
>

> > > >http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_area=sci&y=0&fulltext=australop...
>
> > >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/cdc-says-nightmare-bac...

> > > ...
> > > "Hospitals ... don't have enough time to clean the beds. And also, these
> > > bugs have evolved," he said on Fox News.
> > > ...
>

> > >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23224-zoologger-the-only-virus-...

> > > ...
> > > The bacterium can store new memories by incorporating new fragments
> > > of DNA every time it is attacked, says John van der Oost of
> > > Wageningen University in the Netherlands. "It's an immune system and
> > > it's adaptive." The system is found in 40 per cent of bacteria and
> > > 90 per cent of archaea, which means the adaptive immune systems of
> > > vertebrates are far from unique.
> > > ...
> > > It's yet another twist in the long-running battle between bacteria
> > > and viruses, says van der Oost. "You have every kind of warfare you
> > > can think of in the microbial world. That is why it evolves so fast."
> > > ...
>
> > And another one
>
> >http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130314/srep01456/full/srep01456.html
> > Bed bugs evolved unique adaptive strategy to resist pyrethroid insecticides
>

> http://www.asianscientist.com/in-the-lab/falcon-genome-evolved-birds-...

>
> Researchers have published the first analysis of falcon genomes, providing
> insights into the evolution of predatory adaptations in falcons. The genetic
> insights gained may aid in the conservation of endangered falcon species.

It is a boast and a speculation of future accomplishment, not
evidence. But statements like these infest Evolution literature. A
person hears more truth in a pub full of teenagers at a ski resort
than among the Evolutionists boasting about what they might accomplish
in the decades to come.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Mar 6, 1:56 pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:27 pm, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > OK, now find any normal science organization that has the equivalent of
> > > > > a statement of faith that requires them to ignore any facts whatsoever
> > > > > for any reason. I won't hold my breath.
>
> > > > Such science organizations state that evolution is fact
>
> > > It is fact.
>
> > > > and they ostracize anyone who believes in creationism.
>
> > > Something that has no scientific evidence.
>
> > > > You don't think that will skew their pro-evolution thinking

> > > > during experiments and investigations and in

> > > > analyzing results?
>
> > > No. How could it?
>
> > ======================
>
> > "A scientist who suggested creationism be discussed in school science
> > classes as a “worldview” if students raise questions has been banished
> > from his UK Royal Society job for advocating the open exchange of
> > information."http://www.wnd.com/2008/09/75620/
>
> He isn't a scientist, he's an MD by training and now a bioethicist.

And when did Medical Science cease to be science?

We see an persistently devious approach to these debates that adds
more fog than clarity to your subject.

- No objections are permitted unless they meet the criteria of your
subject
- No critics are permitted to speak unless they are committed groupies
of your subject
- No critics are permitted to speak unless they earn their living by
promoting your subject, etc.

Astrologists could use the same techniques to banish all criticism of
their subject: All critics must have endured long years of extensive
training in the cult monasteries; then, all critics must earn their
daily bread by practicing Astrology; then, no one can speak who has
not ALREADY published a long list of books admiring and drooling over
Astrology charts, etc.

Finally the forum is silenced of all criticism. The subject can
prance and preen in all its glory, and never is heard a discouraging
word.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Feb 24, 8:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
>

> > On Feb 17, 7:37 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Terry Cross wrote:
>

> > > > On Feb 17, 6:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Terry Cross wrote:
>

> > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Terry Cross wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 9:44 am, moshe <joest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> > > > > > > > > > CJ
>

> > > > > > > > > ================

>
> > > > > > > > > Evolution is illogical.
>
> > > > > > > > > - moshe
>

> > > > > > > > Every religion must have a Creation Myth, and Atheism was suffering
> > > > > > > > from the lack.  Therefore, Evolution was invented to fill the need.
> > > > > > > > Evolution is based on false premises that are repeatedly adjusted to
>
> > > > > > > What false premises?
>
> > > > > > Darwinian evolution is indispensably based on incremental evolution.
> > > > > > That had problems.  So Evolution was re-based on punctuated
> > > > > > equilibrium.  That had problems.  So PE is readjusted to ... etc.
>
> > > > > Amazing how increasing knowledge works. Like medicine. No more evil
> > > > > spirits causing disease, right?
>
> > > > Well, let's consider.  Germs are living things and you can't see 'em
> > > > and they cause disease and they thrive on human misery.  How is that
> > > > different from evil spirits?
>
> > > Heard of microscopes?
>

> > When people said diseases were caused by demons, nobody had heard of
> > microscopes, not even you.  And you have not answered the question.
>
> That was my point, thanks to things like microscopes science disproved the
> evil spirit nonsense...

The germ theory is not in disagreement with the evil spirit theory.
It is only an update. The "evil spirit" theory has undergone less
modification in 1,000 years than the Theory of Evolution in the last
100.

TCross

[Gordon]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:30:58 -0700, RichTravsky
<traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>moshe wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > http://creation.com/15-questions
>> >
>> > CJ
>>
>> ================
>>
>> Evolution is illogical.
>>
>> - moshe
>

>And taking a rib from a human male can be turned immediately into a
>human female, while leaving the human male with the same number of
>ribs on each side is?
>
Allegorically interpreted this tells us that God caused some
retrovirus to infect Adam and while he was comatose this retrovirus
did a horizontal DNA transfer from the platelets in Adam's ribs to one
of the ovaries in a female attendant. This transferred the DNA that
was needed to make the female offspring of that specific ovum equal to
Adam.

Adam named all the animals. That is to say that Adam used nouns and
had a much advanced speech/linguistic ability. This was the genotype
that God wanted to also be present in the women. Those early pre-human
women probably had only a very limited linguistic ability. Their
screams and growls were probably about equivalent to verbs but it is
not likely that they could form complex sentences or communicate very
effectively.

Gordon

[Terry Cross]

On Mar 27, 11:36 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:30:58 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >moshe wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://creation.com/15-questions
>
> >> > CJ
>
> >> ================
>
> >> Evolution is illogical.
>
> >> - moshe
>
> >And taking a rib from a human male can be turned immediately into a
> >human female, while leaving the human male with the same number of
> >ribs on each side is?
>
> Allegorically interpreted this tells us that God caused some
> retrovirus to infect Adam and while he was comatose this retrovirus
> did a horizontal DNA transfer from the platelets in Adam's ribs to one
> of the ovaries in a female attendant. This transferred the DNA that
> was needed to make the female offspring of that specific ovum equal to
> Adam.

That would make Adam a a pre-woman human.

> Adam named all the animals. That is to say that Adam used nouns and
> had a much advanced speech/linguistic ability. This was the genotype
> that God wanted to also be present in the women. Those early pre-human
> women probably had only a very limited linguistic ability. Their
> screams and growls were probably about equivalent to verbs

Like maybe: "Good grief, Hymie, would you cut your toenails, already?"

> but it is
> not likely that they could form complex sentences or communicate very
> effectively.

They had a limited range of subjects for discussion -- until the
appearance of the retrovirus we call "Fox News," which causes people
burble endlessly and mindlessly and makes any communication with the
sufferers impossible.

TCross

[Gordon]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 27, 11:36�am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:30:58 -0700, RichTravsky
>> <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >moshe wrote:
>>
>> >> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://creation.com/15-questions
>>
>> >> > CJ
>>
>> >> ================
>>
>> >> Evolution is illogical.
>>
>> >> - moshe
>>
>> >And taking a rib from a human male can be turned immediately into a
>> >human female, while leaving the human male with the same number of
>> >ribs on each side is?
>>
>> Allegorically interpreted this tells us that God caused some
>> retrovirus to infect Adam and while he was comatose this retrovirus
>> did a horizontal DNA transfer from the platelets in Adam's ribs to one
>> of the ovaries in a female attendant. This transferred the DNA that
>> was needed to make the female offspring of that specific ovum equal to
>> Adam.
>
>That would make Adam a a pre-woman human.
>

No, this would make Adam the first or one of the first Modern Humans.
The women were perhaps Neanderthals or some other earlier sub-humans.

[Terry Cross]

Why not just admit you consider women are STILL a "sub-human
species"? You and Moses can share the tent.

TCross

[RichTravsky]

Bzzt. It's how science progresses, by gathering data. The biblical method
comes up with whoppers like rabbits chewing their cud...

[RichTravsky]

Actually it is in disagreement since germs can actually be seen.

> It is only an update. The "evil spirit" theory has undergone less
> modification in 1,000 years than the Theory of Evolution in the last
> 100.

Yes, evil spirit medicine has been 100% BS from the start.

If you get sick, do you pray it away, or go to a REAL doctor?

[RichTravsky]

Gordon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:30:58 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >moshe wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > http://creation.com/15-questions
> >>

> >> Evolution is illogical.
> >>
> >> - moshe
> >
> >And taking a rib from a human male can be turned immediately into a
> >human female, while leaving the human male with the same number of
> >ribs on each side is?
> >
> Allegorically interpreted this tells us that God caused some
> retrovirus to infect Adam and while he was comatose this retrovirus
> did a horizontal DNA transfer from the platelets in Adam's ribs to one
> of the ovaries in a female attendant. This transferred the DNA that
> was needed to make the female offspring of that specific ovum equal to
> Adam.
>
> Adam named all the animals. That is to say that Adam used nouns and
> had a much advanced speech/linguistic ability. This was the genotype
> that God wanted to also be present in the women. Those early pre-human
> women probably had only a very limited linguistic ability. Their
> screams and growls were probably about equivalent to verbs but it is
> not likely that they could form complex sentences or communicate very
> effectively.

Hilarious! Good one!

[RichTravsky]

Gordon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 27, 11:36 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:30:58 -0700, RichTravsky
> >> <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >moshe wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Feb 11, 12:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >http://creation.com/15-questions
> >>
> >>

> >> >> Evolution is illogical.
> >>
> >> >> - moshe
> >>
> >> >And taking a rib from a human male can be turned immediately into a
> >> >human female, while leaving the human male with the same number of
> >> >ribs on each side is?
> >>
> >> Allegorically interpreted this tells us that God caused some
> >> retrovirus to infect Adam and while he was comatose this retrovirus
> >> did a horizontal DNA transfer from the platelets in Adam's ribs to one
> >> of the ovaries in a female attendant. This transferred the DNA that
> >> was needed to make the female offspring of that specific ovum equal to
> >> Adam.
> >
> >That would make Adam a a pre-woman human.
> >
> No, this would make Adam the first or one of the first Modern Humans.
> The women were perhaps Neanderthals or some other earlier sub-humans.

Careful, yhou can't try to use evolution to explain away evolution!

[RichTravsky]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23358-sea-urchins-evolving-to-cope-with-ocean-acidification.html
...
As the oceans become more acidic, many marine animals will have a harder
time extracting the calcium from seawater that they need to build their
skeletons. Marine biologists fear an ecological catastrophe could be
imminent unless animals evolve to take up calcium more efficiently.

Melissa Pespeni, an evolutionary biologist at Indiana University in
Bloomington, and her colleagues decided to find out to what extent
evolution can keep pace with the changing environment. In their lab, they
reared larvae of the purple sea urchin in water of normal or elevated
acidity, corresponding to atmospheric CO2 levels of 400 and 900 parts
per million. To their surprise, they found that the more acidic water
had no apparent negative effect on the development of the larval
skeletons.

Behind that apparent stability, though, was a lot of genetic change. When
Pespeni used gene sequencing to study the developing larvae, she found
that gene frequencies had shifted dramatically during that time. In
particular, genes related to growth, lipid metabolism and the movement of
ions into and out of cells showed significantly more changes in urchins
reared under high-acidity conditions. All these types of genes help cells
cope with increased acidity � a strong hint that the changes are the
result of natural selection.
...

[RichTravsky]

Well?

[Terry Cross]

By boast and speculation? That is indeed a tragic confession, made
even more so by your approval of the process. The everyday person
finds the B&S (or just "BS") in Darwin's book unpalatable, even
intolerable. Darwin was the Carlos Castaneda of biology.

> by gathering data. The biblical method
> comes up with whoppers like rabbits chewing their cud...

Is that the greatest flaw you find in the Bible? You don't have any
problem with people being ordered to stone their neighbors or massacre
children?

TCross

[Terry Cross]

What differences between the germ theory and the evil spirit theory do
you perceive ?

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

Have you, or anyone else, actually seen an evil spirit, with or without
magnification?

What medicines does one use against evil spirits?

What productive medical research is based on the evil spirit theory of
illness?

Which theory gives the better result in helping humans (and other
animals) fight illness?

[Terry Cross]

I do not speak for anyone else. I have never seen an evil spirit or a
germ without magnification, nor have you. The ability to see the
critter did not change the theory, just as the discovery of fossils
did not change the Theory of Evolution.

> What medicines does one use against evil spirits?

Get plenty of rest, drink plenty of liquids, stay warn. :-)

> What productive medical research is based on the evil spirit theory of
> illness?

Since germs are the modern description of what the ancients called
"evil spirits" or "devils" (etc. in whatever language), obviously not
only medical research but medical practice has has been quite
productive on that theory.

> Which theory gives the better result in helping humans (and other
> animals) fight illness?

They are the same theory.

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

You are a very silly person.

[Terry Cross]

You have not explained the critical difference between the two
theories. If you do not understand, you may ask questions.

TCross

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

That you don't see (or claim not to see) the differences means that you
are either a very silly person, or playing a very silly person. In
either case, you're probably beyond reason.

[Terry Cross]

> are either a very silly person ...

Aha! So you resort to the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument??!

Hardly scientific.

TCross

[Tom McDonald]

Except, of course, in fact, you are naked. Facts matter.